EVE Search - Ability to turn alts into AI controlled wingmen

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ability to turn alts into AI controlled wingmen

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gorongo Frostfyr Shimohi Heavy Industries 97	Posted - 2015.02.01 08:55:17 - [1] - Quote One thing I loved in the X series was the ability to control NPC and send them around the universe. While this would be maybe too much for EVE, a limited kind of having the possibility to get some assistance in your space acitivies could be fun and useful. Since the game favours multi-boxing/accounting, why not take it to another step? Reasons for the suggestions are: -could be another reason to undock (could also be the opposite) -more active population in space -the ability to make some good use of the 2 other character slots per account -give people with weaker computers the possibility to enjoy a little bit of multi-boxing Of course this feature could never be released in one go, since it needs careful balance, economy and serverwise. Possible restrictions/limitations: -number of wingmen -bound to PLEX (it is a pilot license) like character training -associated skills like "brainlinking" -damage/mining/remote rep/cap output is reduced for wingmen This idea is meant to be very rough, since I'm not a designing/balance expert. But I would like to hear what other people think about the idea and the possiblities it could offer.
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi 1182	Posted - 2015.02.01 09:06:10 - [2] - Quote No.
Colette Kassia Kassia Industrial Supply 28	Posted - 2015.02.01 09:36:38 - [3] - Quote What? Are you serious?
Gorongo Frostfyr Shimohi Heavy Industries 97	Posted - 2015.02.01 09:53:21 - [4] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: No. Why? Colette Kassia wrote: What? Are you serious? I am.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11599	Posted - 2015.02.01 09:58:32 - [5] - Quote I don't know how to say no in enough languages. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 189	Posted - 2015.02.01 10:34:41 - [6] - Quote http://www.freelang.net/expressions/no.php
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11599	Posted - 2015.02.01 10:41:07 - [7] - Quote FireFrenzy wrote: http://www.freelang.net/expressions/no.php Even that isn't enough. We need to break out the fictional languages. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 8720	Posted - 2015.02.01 10:57:00 - [8] - Quote http://replygif.net/i/1099.gif "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=
Godfrey Silvarna Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 250	Posted - 2015.02.01 11:06:35 - [9] - Quote More player interaction, less NPC interaction!
Arden Elenduil Unlimited Ripoff Works 278	Posted - 2015.02.01 12:49:09 - [10] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: FireFrenzy wrote: http://www.freelang.net/expressions/no.php Even that isn't enough. We need to break out the fictional languages. Anyone here know how to say "no" in Klingon?
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11607	Posted - 2015.02.01 12:51:41 - [11] - Quote Arden Elenduil wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: FireFrenzy wrote: http://www.freelang.net/expressions/no.php Even that isn't enough. We need to break out the fictional languages. Anyone here know how to say "no" in Klingon? Ghobe. Still need more. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Owen Levanth Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration 368	Posted - 2015.02.01 13:37:14 - [12] - Quote The X-series is a single player game, so that ability makes sense there. EVE is a multiplayer game, so that ability makes absolutely no sense here. So I'll try to make this short and concise: Your idea is ****, OP.
Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 221	Posted - 2015.02.01 13:52:51 - [13] - Quote What the actual ****? God no.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3181	Posted - 2015.02.01 14:23:07 - [14] - Quote Every fight would treble in size. Every single one. What do you think that'd do to the game?
Goatman NotMyFault NorCorp Shipyards 161	Posted - 2015.02.01 14:23:15 - [15] - Quote While the OP tries to come With a idea, there are no explaining, argumentative or good answers (beside one). I can understand why People dont like the idea, but how they Express it, amazes me.... shakes head
Mr Floydy Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 268	Posted - 2015.02.01 14:45:29 - [16] - Quote Only if they have the same NPC AI as the X games. ie crashing into you, or stargates regularly. Costing you lots of money and ships. Play with some friends :)
Zimmer Jones Aliastra Gallente Federation 108	Posted - 2015.02.01 16:07:43 - [17] - Quote NO - (insert number of alts you have) Unsupported. Reasons: they just got made isboxer a bannable offense. This just turns multiboxing into a very watered down version of the same. Juggle the windows, just like every other multiboxer. If you can't well, the people that legit multibox deserve the leg up for their skill and investment.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 116	Posted - 2015.02.01 17:24:18 - [18] - Quote Goatman NotMyFault wrote: While the OP tries to come With a idea, there are no explaining, argumentative or good answers (beside one). I can understand why People dont like the idea, but how they Express it, amazes me.... shakes head OK let's try this. There is a thing called ISBoxer http://isboxer.com/ this allowed one person to control many ships since the commands are linked down from your master ship to every ship you have set up. In other words tell one to shoot a specific target and all of the other ships lock and shoot the same target. This used to be a big thing in some segments of the game until CCP finally wised up and realized that this type of set up is very bad for a game when you are trying to encourage players to work together so CCP wisely banned the use of ISBoxer. Now along comes the OP and asks for an in game version of ISBoxer and you wonder why we all think it is a bad idea? If you want to have multiple ships in space and control them then load multiple clients and alt-tab between them, or use multiple monitors. -1
Goatman NotMyFault NorCorp Shipyards 162	Posted - 2015.02.01 17:28:39 - [19] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Goatman NotMyFault wrote: While the OP tries to come With a idea, there are no explaining, argumentative or good answers (beside one). I can understand why People dont like the idea, but how they Express it, amazes me.... shakes head OK let's try this. There is a thing called ISBoxer http://isboxer.com/ this allowed one person to control many ships since the commands are linked down from your master ship to every ship you have set up. In other words tell one to shoot a specific target and all of the other ships lock and shoot the same target. This used to be a big thing in some segments of the game until CCP finally wised up and realized that this type of set up is very bad for a game when you are trying to encourage players to work together so CCP wisely banned the use of ISBoxer. Now along comes the OP and asks for an in game version of ISBoxer and you wonder why we all think it is a bad idea? If you want to have multiple ships in space and control them then load multiple clients and alt-tab between them, or use multiple monitors. -1 Well thats a better answer ;) and i do agree on what you said... Tho, if we twist this idea abit.... lets say you got 1 account and 3 toons, ypu can set NPC to controll those 2 ure not logged into. You can make orders for dem to do mondane jobs like mine or other mindcrippling tasks.
kardjaval EVE University Ivy League 21	Posted - 2015.02.01 17:29:39 - [20] - Quote so...solo command a entire fleet with ai like precision timing, and create your own alpha striking gank fleets. this is a MMO mate, get freinds.
Goatman NotMyFault NorCorp Shipyards 162	Posted - 2015.02.01 17:42:17 - [21] - Quote Goatman NotMyFault wrote: Donnachadh wrote: Goatman NotMyFault wrote: While the OP tries to come With a idea, there are no explaining, argumentative or good answers (beside one). I can understand why People dont like the idea, but how they Express it, amazes me.... shakes head OK let's try this. There is a thing called ISBoxer http://isboxer.com/ this allowed one person to control many ships since the commands are linked down from your master ship to every ship you have set up. In other words tell one to shoot a specific target and all of the other ships lock and shoot the same target. This used to be a big thing in some segments of the game until CCP finally wised up and realized that this type of set up is very bad for a game when you are trying to encourage players to work together so CCP wisely banned the use of ISBoxer. Now along comes the OP and asks for an in game version of ISBoxer and you wonder why we all think it is a bad idea? If you want to have multiple ships in space and control them then load multiple clients and alt-tab between them, or use multiple monitors. -1 Well thats a better answer ;) and i do agree on what you said... Tho, if we twist this idea abit.... lets say you got 1 account and 3 toons, ypu can set NPC to controll those 2 ure not logged into. You can make orders for dem to do mondane jobs like mine or other mindcrippling tasks. Addition.... When given orders what to do, you cant change their orders unless you logg into thast char and stop them, making them while under command run by NPC and the char ure logged into have no influence over those NPC runned chars.
Ix Method Shadows Legion High-Sec Tomfoolery 398	Posted - 2015.02.01 20:03:05 - [22] - Quote There is no twist. It's an idea for a different game. Travelling at the speed of love.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 29649	Posted - 2015.02.01 21:55:38 - [23] - Quote Yeah, this is identical to an idea I proposed a while back (thread is still open). The basic premise is more client support of alts from CCP, who is willing to sell the subscriptions and allow multiboxing. A proliferation of multiboxing to players who only want to use one screen, to level the playing field against setups like mine (Mk III link in my sig). Don't let bullheaded replies of "no" get you down. Players are not the authority on these matters, and it's **** posting. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Twitter \|-ámk.III \| Imgur \| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined \|
Shin Katsumoto Tungsten Carbonide Asset Management Tungsten Dominion 4	Posted - 2015.02.01 23:02:11 - [24] - Quote Sounds awesome. I would so much support this idea. It goes a little bit against the MMO spirit but if you limit it to say, 2 AI wingman, per account. It would be pretty awesome.
Samillian Angry Mustellid The Periphery 692	Posted - 2015.02.01 23:20:28 - [25] - Quote If this was ever implemented EvE would stop being a game I would want to play. Not supported. NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 29649	Posted - 2015.02.01 23:23:55 - [26] - Quote Samillian wrote: If this was ever implemented EvE would stop being a game I would want to play. Not supported. what's the difference the skillsheets of the characters pictured: 1 2 President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Twitter \|-ámk.III \| Imgur \| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined \|
Bob Maths EVE University Ivy League 24	Posted - 2015.02.02 02:44:14 - [27] - Quote Samillian wrote: If this was ever implemented EvE would stop being a game I would want to play. Not supported. Where were you when using ISBoxer like in the way OP described was permitted? kardjaval wrote: so...solo command a entire fleet with ai like precision timing, and create your own alpha striking gank fleets. this is a MMO mate, get freinds. ISBoxing anyone? Yeah, there was something called ISBoxing and your idea was essentially what happened. Not going to happen.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 29650	Posted - 2015.02.02 03:12:16 - [28] - Quote There's still enough module delay and automation in the game to control several ships with near-perfect efficiency. This is with groups of ships with mixed roles, rather than the often cited copy paste alpha gangs, which is shortsighted and unimaginative. Basically, everyone's claims that this is basically ISBoxer, *** you* are ignorant. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Twitter \|-ámk.III \| Imgur \| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined \|
Gorongo Frostfyr 100	Posted - 2015.02.02 05:48:45 - [29] - Quote At least there were some constructive replies in this thread.
Kenrailae Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 345	Posted - 2015.02.02 07:18:56 - [30] - Quote * Gorongo Frostfyr wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: No. Why? Answer is easy. Pay to win. How do you lose when you can just buy 15 more guys in incursus to follow you around into every plex, and automatically follow your primaries, rep you, whatev's. Eve already has mechanics for this: Join a group, become an experienced FC, explore the dark reaches of space with your new wingmen. Also EDIT: Isboxing is not multi-boxing. Multiboxing you have to watch multiple clients, actively control multiple clients, give each client a command, not just click once and they all do. It's not even about 'timing.' Multi-boxing creates a large split in a players attention, causes him/her to choose which problem is more important to manage, forces him/her to make decisions and errors. ISboxing is all click and done. *EDITED a quoting errororororor. The Law is a point of View
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 29652	Posted - 2015.02.02 07:50:04 - [31] - Quote It seems players will remain unreasonable on this topic until they understand the difference between copy paste multiboxing and mixed role multiboxing. Until then, they remain in their cave of unibox sanctity. When players are ready to discuss the reality of things, I'm all ears, not that it's any player's business who is behind what character(s). President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Twitter \|-ámk.III \| Imgur \| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined \|
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1595	Posted - 2015.02.02 08:10:16 - [32] - Quote Your change would make using the multiple training queue ad vitam eternam mandatory for every player. Your change would kill the server Your change would devalue even more the influence of a new player in a big fight. Your change is bad. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
Gorongo Frostfyr 101	Posted - 2015.02.02 08:13:00 - [33] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: Answer is easy. Pay to win. How do you lose when you can just buy 15 more guys in incursus to follow you around into every plex, and automatically follow your primaries, rep you, whatev's. Well, sounds like the game is already pay to win? Since it is possible to achieve that scenario with some effort. I mean, multiboxing/account is already deeply entangled with many parts of the game, why not make it a real feature?
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 29652	Posted - 2015.02.02 08:13:13 - [34] - Quote Server load is covered by the fact that each of your AI drone characters is on an active account. The load is paid for. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Twitter \|-ámk.III \| Imgur \| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined \|
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 29652	Posted - 2015.02.02 08:23:51 - [35] - Quote Altrue wrote: Your change would make using the multiple training queue ad vitam eternam mandatory for every player. Your change would kill the server Your change would devalue even more the influence of a new player in a big fight. Your change is bad. -Training queues are already a bit of an addiction in EVE, how does this change relate to that addiction? -Server load is covered by the fact that each of your AI drone characters is on an active account. The load is paid for. -"but new players" is simply false, and the opposite of this change. With it, new players can improve their utility and effectiveness several times faster with multiple characters from the earliest time possible. From a game design perspective, this concept is win based on the player motivation of wanting power. The general idea of a type of service like games is giving paying customers what they want. This change gives customers as much of what they want as they care to pay for. This is one of those fundamental, big ticket changes that would make EVE wildly popular, for once. It's also more of an acknowledgement of what is, than some type of catastrophe, because multiple accounts are already offered to players by CCP and are playable. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Twitter \|-ámk.III \| Imgur \| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined \|
Samillian Angry Mustellid The Periphery 693	Posted - 2015.02.02 08:49:11 - [36] - Quote I can understand you are loath to lose a massive advantage, that is understandable and considering the time and treasure a top of the line multi-broadcast set up requires certainly very frustrating. The fact is that while most multibox (hands up I have the trade alt up and running while I'm online to keep an eye on prices and to put on invention and manufacturing jobs in my spare moments not to mention cyno alts) what you propose will be making multiple accounts virtually mandatory if a player wants to take part in almost any worthwhile activity. Keep banging the drum, its your right as a paying customer but I reiterate that should a proposal like this ever be adopted and it becomes even more necessary to have multiple accounts just to casually PvP (I hate booster alts to, how neolithic of me) then it will be time to walk away from EvE. NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2705	Posted - 2015.02.02 09:23:19 - [37] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: FireFrenzy wrote: http://www.freelang.net/expressions/no.php Even that isn't enough. We need to break out the fictional languages. Draconic - thric Elvish - n'uma Dwarven - Nai, Na, Nuf Drow - nau
Kenrailae Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 346	Posted - 2015.02.02 11:38:52 - [38] - Quote Gorongo Frostfyr wrote: Kenrailae wrote: Answer is easy. Pay to win. How do you lose when you can just buy 15 more guys in incursus to follow you around into every plex, and automatically follow your primaries, rep you, whatev's. Well, sounds like the game is already pay to win? Since it is possible to achieve that scenario with some effort. I mean, multiboxing/account is already deeply entangled with many parts of the game, why not make it a real feature? Because the current system still requires players to be responsible for their stuff, for their ships, and their ability to manage them. However much someone else wants to decry it as unfair, the only 'fair' is one account/machine. After that it can ALL be argued as pay to win, even the buying and selling of plex. So one account per machine/person, and no plex. All in game and only in game. That is the only 'fair.' But Eve isn't fair, and has never claimed to be fair. Eve is about choice and consequence and opportunity. You are free to choose to have 15 incursus alts. You are also responsible for flying each one of them. ISboxer removed this, which is why it was deemed in breach of the ToS. You are free to multi-box however many characters you want, but you have to control them all, not expect the computer to, or play only one and expect the others to follow your lead. An 'AI alt' would not require you to fly that ship. That is why this is not a thing, and can't be a thing. Personally I'd be happy if CCP banned every account even suspected of botting/input broadcasting. But that hurts the bottom line too much, so I understand why they don't. When I multi-box, I fly both/all my ships. I give each of them each command. I am still 'flying' each one, as much as 'approach FC and follow primaries' goes. The Law is a point of View
Alundil Isogen 5 848	Posted - 2015.02.02 15:43:21 - [39] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I don't know how to say no in enough languages. Here http://users.elite.net/runner/jennifers/no.htm I'm right behind you
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 29658	Posted - 2015.02.02 16:31:26 - [40] - Quote Samillian wrote: I can understand you are loath to lose a massive advantage, that is understandable and considering the time and treasure a top of the line multi-broadcast set up requires certainly very frustrating. The fact is that while most multibox (hands up I have the trade alt up and running while I'm online to keep an eye on prices and to put on invention and manufacturing jobs in my spare moments not to mention cyno alts) what you propose will be making multiple accounts virtually mandatory if a player wants to take part in almost any worthwhile activity. Keep banging the drum, its your right as a paying customer but I reiterate that should a proposal like this ever be adopted and it becomes even more necessary to have multiple accounts just to casually PvP (I hate booster alts to, how neolithic of me) then it will be time to walk away from EvE. strength in numbers is already a requirement and it's not your business who is in control of a character. you also are not entitled to casual pvp. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Twitter \|-ámk.III \| Imgur \| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined \|
Gorongo Frostfyr 101	Posted - 2015.02.02 17:32:10 - [41] - Quote Personally, it would rather take the option that every individual has only one account with one character - but that's a romanticisation of something that will never happen, because people will cry and yell like they already do in this thread.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 29658	Posted - 2015.02.02 20:46:50 - [42] - Quote One-client-only is still playable, for being able to log in with characters in different locations one after the other. I disagree with only allowing one account per player, though. I don't know why you'd want to limit the success of a product that way. There's also differences between running separate clients versus fleeting characters as NPC AI drone ships. The first is the limited roles, and lack of fine control such as covops cloaks and cyno characters. You also miss out on a set of eyes in some other location, or the freedom to send one of your characters off to scout. So. NPC AI drone ships are not without drawbacks. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Twitter \|-ámk.III \| Imgur \| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined \|
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF 300	Posted - 2015.02.03 03:46:15 - [43] - Quote This idea is utterly laughable. Let's punish people who don't pay CCP extra money..... more than they already do..... Idiocy at it's finest.
Agondray Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces 191	Posted - 2015.02.03 04:19:51 - [44] - Quote yes under the condition they turn red as a npc pirate and can be attacked "Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Gorongo Frostfyr 101	Posted - 2015.02.03 04:57:22 - [45] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I disagree with only allowing one account per player, though. I don't know why you'd want to limit the success of a product that way. For EVE like it is right now, you're right - that's why I said it is a romanticisation, it doesn't fit the design or the reality of the game. Rain6637 wrote: There's also differences between running separate clients versus fleeting characters as NPC AI drone ships. The first is the limited roles, and lack of fine control such as covops cloaks and cyno characters. You also miss out on a set of eyes in some other location, or the freedom to send one of your characters off to scout. So. NPC AI drone ships are not without drawbacks. Sadly, people ignore this as an option - I tried to mention that briefly in the opening post - and prefer to post destructive generalisations like: Phaade wrote: This idea is utterly laughable. Let's punish people who don't pay CCP extra money..... more than they already do..... Idiocy at it's finest.
Mazzara Gale Force Contractors 24	Posted - 2015.02.03 18:27:01 - [46] - Quote Gorongo Frostfyr wrote: One thing I loved in the X series was the ability to control NPC and send them around the universe. While this would be maybe too much for EVE, a limited kind of having the possibility to get some assistance in your space acitivies could be fun and useful. Since the game favours multi-boxing/accounting, why not take it to another step? Reasons for the suggestions are: -could be another reason to undock (could also be the opposite) -more active population in space -the ability to make some good use of the 2 other character slots per account -give people with weaker computers the possibility to enjoy a little bit of multi-boxing Of course this feature could never be released in one go, since it needs careful balance, economy and serverwise. Possible restrictions/limitations: -number of wingmen -bound to PLEX (it is a pilot license) like character training -associated skills like "brainlinking" -damage/mining/remote rep/cap output is reduced for wingmen This idea is meant to be very rough, since I'm not a designing/balance expert. But I would like to hear what other people think about the idea and the possiblities it could offer. Why not? I mean they already allow people to have a edge with multi-boxing. I mean all or none `No matter how much you scrub, how hot of water you use,-áyou can't wash shame!`
Mazzara Gale Force Contractors 24	Posted - 2015.02.03 18:31:44 - [47] - Quote Phaade wrote: This idea is utterly laughable. Let's punish people who don't pay CCP extra money..... more than they already do..... Idiocy at it's finest. why? you already do? how players worked this game is that your at a disadvantage if you only have one account, SB fleets of actual different players are at a disadvantage compaired to ISboxers. I mean personally multi-boxing of any kind is dumb. `No matter how much you scrub, how hot of water you use,-áyou can't wash shame!`
Mazzara Gale Force Contractors 24	Posted - 2015.02.03 18:32:41 - [48] - Quote Gorongo Frostfyr wrote: Personally, it would rather take the option that every individual has only one account with one character - but that's a romanticisation of something that will never happen, because people will cry and yell like they already do in this thread. I agree 100% `No matter how much you scrub, how hot of water you use,-áyou can't wash shame!`
Hopelesshobo Tactical Nuclear Penguin's 411	Posted - 2015.02.03 21:56:06 - [49] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Arden Elenduil wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: FireFrenzy wrote: http://www.freelang.net/expressions/no.php Even that isn't enough. We need to break out the fictional languages. Anyone here know how to say "no" in Klingon? Ghobe. Still need more. Nee! Jo! +ä+º! Xeyr! Ez! -¥-Å-+-¦! aªòaºïaª¿! Ne! He! Dili! S+ì! Nej! Neniu! Ei! Walang! Non! ßâÉßâáßâÉ! Nein! +î-ç+¦! a¬¿a¬+! A'a! +£+É! añ¿añ¦aÑÇañé! Tsis yog! Nem! Nei! Mba! Tidak! Uimh! Tüòpüå! Ora! a¦ça¦¦a¦ìa¦¦! 8òêdÅ+! N-ô! Nru! -«-¦-»-¦! +å+ç! Nie! N+úo! a¿òa¬ïa¿ê! Nu! -¥-¦-é! Hapana! a«ça«¦a»ìa«¦a»ê! a¦Å! Hay-¦r! Hi! +å¦ü¦î+¦! Kh+¦ng! Nac oes! +á+Ö+ÿ! Ti ko si! Qo'! Better? Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 3792	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:17:13 - [50] - Quote I have removed a rule breaking post. The Rules: 13. Spamming is prohibited. Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to (insert other game name)GÇ¥ and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.